The class of Vernon "too short to be effective" Philander

[Suleiman]

Ben Stokes and Moeen Ali get a lot of coverage and press these days, the latter more due to certain reasons .

However I feel Vernon Philander is rather under-appreciated and have been a big fan of his ever since the 2011 tour of Australia to SAF which was his debut series IIRC.

His bowling back then was still good, but think he has come a long way as a batsman. Showed a glimpse of his batting prowess vs us in the 2013 tour where we got smacked 3-0. Think it was the 3rd test (?) where we put up a good total courtesy a Shafiq/Younis masterclass but he ate into a lot of it with a well made 80 odd. (can't recall if that was him or Robin Peterson, also a good bowler who could bat, but that's another story)

Then in this recent tour to Australia he also looked like a formidable bat, playing the short ball with utmost confidence on pitches where it is the most effective.

More than that though he didn't crumble under the pressure of becoming the leader of the pack with Steyn out injured. And I think that was the best I saw of him, especially because a lot of folks here were playing him down saying things like..

"He's too short to be an effective bowler in Australia"

"He's not fast enough to bowl well in Australia"

Both claims were rubbished. And he also put SAF in a good position in the first test vs Eng this season, and is batting really well now.

Where do you rank him in the world today as far as tests go? What will be his legacy? He's a bit old now, but could he still become an ATG?

I'm going to go ahead and say he is number 1 right now with Moeen 2 and Stokes 3.

 

[Rayyman]

Imo he is the best bowler in the world in Tests.

Only reason he isn't talked about is because of the format he plays in.

 

[volcyz]

The problem with him has always been his beer belly fitness.
He alrrady bowls slow and loses pace as the innings wears on.

Putting more strain on his teammates such as Rabada etc who bowl faster and more overs than Philander.

 

[ExpressPacer]

Mediocre bowler in my opinion. No height, no pace, doesn't really swing it and only seams it in helpful conditions. Worst of all, he only performs when it doesn't matter.

 

[Junaids]

There are good and bad things about Vernon Philander.

First, the good. He has 164 Test wickets at an outstanding average of 22.45. That's a superb record.

Unfortunately, it doesn't withstand closer scrutiny.

He is an accurate medium-fast bowler who bowls in an era in which defensive batting techniques are worse than they have been for 80 years, with even the likes of Kane Williamson notorious for their airy wafts outside off-stump which they attempt because they are so used to limited overs cricket.

For almost his entire career, South Africa has been one of the Top Two Test nations, so of course Philander has not had to bowl to many of the best batsmen. Speaking of which, how exactly does Philander stanck up, six years into his international career?

The answer is surprisingly poorly.

95 wickets at home at an average of 18.95
54 wickets in similar conditions in England, New Zealand and Australia, at an average of 25.37
13 wickets in 7 Tests in 6 years outside of favourable conditions, in Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka and the UAE, at an average of 32.00.

Vernon Philander is a latter day Alec Bedser, as [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] has so helpfully signposted.

He's not tall, he's not quick. But he's very accurate and on helpful wickets is highly skilled at dismissing batsmen with poor defensive techniques.

But the less grass there is on the pitch, the more he struggles.

Consider the tour of Australia in the last southern summer:

First Test at Perth on a grassy, bouncy track against a failing batting line-up:
19.2-2-56-4
22-7-50-1

Second Test at Hobart on a greentop in which the whole match saw fewer than 600 runs scored:
10.1-5-21-5
16-6-31-0

Third Test at Adelaide with less grass on the pitch - even for a pink ball Test:
29-5-100-2
7-2-20-0

It's just astonishing how Philander is transformed into an ineffective bowler when the conditions don't favour him.

That's when you realise how slow and short he is.

 

[Tusker]

There are good and bad things about Vernon Philander.

First, the good. He has 164 Test wickets at an outstanding average of 22.45. That's a superb record.

Unfortunately, it doesn't withstand closer scrutiny.

He is an accurate medium-fast bowler who bowls in an era in which defensive batting techniques are worse than they have been for 80 years, with even the likes of Kane Williamson notorious for their airy wafts outside off-stump which they attempt because they are so used to limited overs cricket.

For almost his entire career, South Africa has been one of the Top Two Test nations, so of course Philander has not had to bowl to many of the best batsmen. Speaking of which, how exactly does Philander stanck up, six years into his international career?

The answer is surprisingly poorly.

95 wickets at home at an average of 18.95
54 wickets in similar conditions in England, New Zealand and Australia, at an average of 25.37
13 wickets in 7 Tests in 6 years outside of favourable conditions, in Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka and the UAE, at an average of 32.00.

Vernon Philander is a latter day Alec Bedser, as [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] has so helpfully signposted.

He's not tall, he's not quick. But he's very accurate and on helpful wickets is highly skilled at dismissing batsmen with poor defensive techniques.

But the less grass there is on the pitch, the more he struggles.

Consider the tour of Australia in the last southern summer:

First Test at Perth on a grassy, bouncy track against a failing batting line-up:
19.2-2-56-4
22-7-50-1

Second Test at Hobart on a greentop in which the whole match saw fewer than 600 runs scored:
10.1-5-21-5
16-6-31-0

Third Test at Adelaide with less grass on the pitch - even for a pink ball Test:
29-5-100-2
7-2-20-0

It's just astonishing how Philander is transformed into an ineffective bowler when the conditions don't favour him.

That's when you realise how slow and short he is.

Not latter day Bedser but Trueman or Statham or Tyson ( yeah I know its sacrilegious but its the harsh fact) . Bedser bowled with the keeper standing up. Most likely in the approx 110K range ... Philander quite regularly touches 130-132K's ( unless you don't trust the Sky Sport Camera too !! ) but is just super accurate.

 

[Chrish]

Phil is actually one of the few bowlers who can get something out the wicket regardless of the conditions.

I still remember how everyone expected him to pull hamstring in last tour of Australia. And when you consider the regular contributions he makes with the willow, he is irreplaceable!

The only valid criticism is lack of decent sample size.

 

[MMHS]

There are good and bad things about Vernon Philander.

First, the good. He has 164 Test wickets at an outstanding average of 22.45. That's a superb record.

Unfortunately, it doesn't withstand closer scrutiny.

He is an accurate medium-fast bowler who bowls in an era in which defensive batting techniques are worse than they have been for 80 years, with even the likes of Kane Williamson notorious for their airy wafts outside off-stump which they attempt because they are so used to limited overs cricket.

For almost his entire career, South Africa has been one of the Top Two Test nations, so of course Philander has not had to bowl to many of the best batsmen. Speaking of which, how exactly does Philander stanck up, six years into his international career?

The answer is surprisingly poorly.

95 wickets at home at an average of 18.95
54 wickets in similar conditions in England, New Zealand and Australia, at an average of 25.37
13 wickets in 7 Tests in 6 years outside of favourable conditions, in Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka and the UAE, at an average of 32.00.

Vernon Philander is a latter day Alec Bedser, as [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] has so helpfully signposted.

He's not tall, he's not quick. But he's very accurate and on helpful wickets is highly skilled at dismissing batsmen with poor defensive techniques.

But the less grass there is on the pitch, the more he struggles.

Consider the tour of Australia in the last southern summer:

First Test at Perth on a grassy, bouncy track against a failing batting line-up:
19.2-2-56-4
22-7-50-1

Second Test at Hobart on a greentop in which the whole match saw fewer than 600 runs scored:
10.1-5-21-5
16-6-31-0

Third Test at Adelaide with less grass on the pitch - even for a pink ball Test:
29-5-100-2
7-2-20-0

It's just astonishing how Philander is transformed into an ineffective bowler when the conditions don't favour him.

That's when you realise how slow and short he is.

Perfect summary, apart from the Bedsar part. Sir Alec Bedsar probably was best bowler in 40s, debuting at 27 for war torn ENG - but, it should end there. He is a true legend of the game - the Fazal Mahmood of Britain or other way, BUT I have seen nice pot belly WKs standing on wicket at his fastest, which I don't think was faster than Ganguly or Soumya Sarkar, but he had unbelievable control on his length & line - could have hit a coin on good length.

Vernon's biggest quality is, he is making it count in conditions that favors him - it's like Ashwin. I think, he'll trouble ENG in this Test.

 

[Junaids]

Not latter day Bedser but Trueman or Statham or Tyson ( yeah I know its sacrilegious but its the harsh fact) . Bedser bowled with the keeper standing up. Most likely in the approx 110K range ... Philander quite regularly touches 130-132K's ( unless you don't trust the Sky Sport Camera too !! ) but is just super accurate.

Full marks for trying, but you have stumbled into a trap of your own making.

You have said that Philander bowls at up to 130-132K. I agree, he occasionally gets up to that pace.

But you have then compared him to Typhoon Tyson and Brian Statham.

But it is an undisputed fact that at the Aeronautical College in Wellington in 1955, bowling in normal shoes from short run-ups........

Tyson was measured at 89 mph (143K),

Statham was measured at 85 mph (137K).

Source: http://www.cricketcountry.com/cricl...the-typhoon-who-brought-the-ashes-back-516252

I have never seen Vernon Philander reach either of those speeds in a Test match.

And that's his problem. If the pitch or overhead conditions don't suit him, he is too slow and too short to present any threat.

To be honest, in unfavourable conditions away from home, only his colour and his batting kept him in the team ahead of Kyle Abbott.

Rather like at the 2015 World Cup, at which Abbott was bowling beautifully in unfavourable conditions - his extra height allowed him to get lift from a full length - but the unfit Philander was recalled to replace him for racial quota reasons, and they lost the semi-final.

 

[Junaids]

Perfect summary, apart from the Bedsar part. Sir Alec Bedsar probably was best bowler in 40s, debuting at 27 for war torn ENG - but, it should end there. He is a true legend of the game - the Fazal Mahmood of Britain or other way, BUT I have seen nice pot belly WKs standing on wicket at his fastest, which I don't think was faster than Ganguly or Soumya Sarkar, but he had unbelievable control on his length & line - could have hit a coin on good length.

Vernon's biggest quality is, he is making it count in conditions that favors him - it's like Ashwin. I think, he'll trouble ENG in this Test.

Steady on!

Alec Bedser and the greatest wicketkeeper of all time, Godfrey Evans, both debuted in 1946.

Your pot-bellied keeper was the finest glovesman the world has ever seen.

I acknowledged in the other thread that Philander bowls between 120-130K while Bedser (and Bailey) bowled at 113-129K.

But Evans would have stood up to the stumps against every ball not just of Philander's career, but also every ball bowled by Mohammad Asif or Glenn McGrath too.

Evans liked a drink and was a ruddy-faced slightly rotund figure. But the perfection of his hands made Wasim Bari (the best Pakistani glovesman) look like Kamran Akmal, and it allowed him to stand up to fairly brisk bowlers.

 

[Tusker]

Full marks for trying, but you have stumbled into a trap of your own making.

You have said that Philander bowls at up to 130-132K. I agree, he occasionally gets up to that pace.

But you have then compared him to Typhoon Tyson and Brian Statham.

But it is an undisputed fact that at the Aeronautical College in Wellington in 1955, bowling in normal shoes from short run-ups........

Tyson was measured at 89 mph (143K),

Statham was measured at 85 mph (137K).

Source: http://www.cricketcountry.com/cricl...the-typhoon-who-brought-the-ashes-back-516252

just can't be ... nobody with that kind of action and runup can generate such high speeds that only a handfull of modern cricketers can reach . That makes mockery of Physics (and common sense)

Have a look (and luckily it is from his most famous match where he is supposed to have bowled the fastest) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN1UAhYPByQ

How can you bring yourselves to believe into those "Facts" when there is absolutely nothing credible to back that up ?

And didnt I estimate his speed based on that clip in a previous discussion long time ago ?

 

[Tusker]

the only hit you get on Google for that story is this BS from Tyson himself :


As Tyson himself explains: "We were measured at the NZ Aeronautical College in Wellington in 1955. A metal plate was attached to a ball, which was then bowled through a sonic beam. It produced a whistle, which was measured and then the speed was worked out according to the distance covered and the length of the whistle. I was measured at 89mph and Statham at 87mph."


Please tell me how that makes any sense at all ?? And BTW there seems to be no trace at all of this Aeronautical College in Wellington ... went bust ?

 

[MMHS]

Steady on!

Alec Bedser and the greatest wicketkeeper of all time, Godfrey Evans, both debuted in 1946.

Your pot-bellied keeper was the finest glovesman the world has ever seen.

I acknowledged in the other thread that Philander bowls between 120-130K while Bedser (and Bailey) bowled at 113-129K.

But Evans would have stood up to the stumps against every ball not just of Philander's career, but also every ball bowled by Mohammad Asif or Glenn McGrath too.

Evans liked a drink and was a ruddy-faced slightly rotund figure. But the perfection of his hands made Wasim Bari (the best Pakistani glovesman) look like Kamran Akmal, and it allowed him to stand up to fairly brisk bowlers.

I know that WK was Godfrey Evans , and he was a bit thirsty always. His gloves work was fantastic, I agree, but you spoiled it with McGrath & Asif - both were faster in their 4th spell of the day than Harold Larwood on his 4th ball of the day. How do you believe WK, keeping against 100-120KM balls, would manage 140KM+, with that sort of physique? He was fantastic in gloving the ball within standing reach, but are you sure with his mobility, he would have managed faster bowlers? He stood on wicket, not because he was good at gathering, rather because it helped him reaching the ball - standing 10 metres behind, he won't have reached many of those 120KM thunderbolts with his bottom heavy structure.

 

[kaifmazhar]

He can simply be described as a strike bowler whose is trying to become a batsman but has atrocious fitness level. All those talking about is bowling avg should actually look at how he performed in his first 11 tests and then thereafter. Over a period of time, keen followers of cricket realised that he can neither be completely trusted as a batsman nor as a bowler. His bowling it seems will soon become a history so he should better concentrate more on batting as he seems to have a proper technique for a test batsman.

 

[Junaids]

just can't be ... nobody with that kind of action and runup can generate such high speeds that only a handfull of modern cricketers can reach . That makes mockery of Physics (and common sense)

Have a look (and luckily it is from his most famous match where he is supposed to have bowled the fastest) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN1UAhYPByQ

How can you bring yourselves to believe into those "Facts" when there is absolutely nothing credible to back that up ?

And didnt I estimate his speed based on that clip in a previous discussion long time ago ?

Don't give up your day job in pursuit of a career as a barrister!

Firstly, why is it strange that modern bowlers aren't faster than the very fastest ones from the past? Modern aircraft are slower than older aircraft too: both passenger and military aircraft are slower than was the case 50 years ago.

Secondly, of course you can't find contemporaneous links to events sixty years ago. But the Aeronautical College testing of Tyson and Statham was still widely discussed in cricket broadcasts in New Zealand in the 1990s when I lived there.

Thirdly, the Wellington Aeronautical College is now Massey School of Aviation.

http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/lear...chool-of-aviation/school-of-aviation_home.cfm

Fourthly, answer me this. Do you dispute all measurements of the speed of all objects in the 1950s as recorded by academics and scientists at the time? Because it appears that in this case we have two choices:

Option A: accept the speed measurements made with specialist measuring equipment in the 1950s at a university department which specialised in measuring the speed of projectiles,

or

Option B: accept the estimates of a young man attempting to measure speed on his laptop from low definition 2D film taken at an unknown angle to the delivery which is sixty years old and has been compacted to fit on YouTube, without having access to the height of either the bowler or batsman.

Fifthly, have you asked yourself why speeds were high in the 1950s, then fell in the 1960s and then rose again in the 1970s? You are quick to dismiss anything old as inferior, but that blinds you to an analysis of real trends which occurred.

Let me explain.

There were several bowlers in the 1950s and early 1960s who were unsually quick. The world had got used to Lindwall and Miller in the late 1940's, who probably bowled in the 140-145K range at their fastest but at times down in the high 130's.

But the next period saw bowlers sustain higher paces. Tyson seems to have been around the 150 mark, Trueman was indubitably around 145K, but even Statham, who was measured as 8K slower than Tyson, was around the 140 mark.

And it wasn't just in England. In South Africa, Neil Adcock bowled in the high 140's and his partner, Geoff Griffin, was similar. How could this be?

The answer, unfortunately, was simple. The 1950s was a generation in which chucking was rife, and Griffin the first bowler to be regularly called for it, in the Lords Test in 1960 in which he took a hat-trick

And there is a much bigger fish out there who has never really been publically outed.

I'm from Lancashire, and our Brian Statham retired as the third highest wicket-taker in Test history. But on Australian TV recently, Garry Sobers told Crash Craddock what had been whispered for decades: Bradman thought that Statham was a chucker. That's the equivalent of the Murali scandal, no different to if it came out now that Glenn McGrath was a chucker.

And to be honest it all makes sense to me. There's no reason why professional cricketers in the 2010s should be more skilled or faster bowlers than their professional counterparts of decades gone by.

But there are two reasons why they should be slower.

Firstly, they can't abuse steroids like certain cricketers might have in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

And secondly, improved TV technology means that they can't blatantly chuck.

 

[Arham_PakFan]

He's done extremely well in favourable conditions.

 

[Dios]

People have been doubting him based on his physicality since he started his international cricket but he has been proving them wrong and carried on to be extremely effective on a consistent basis. These so-called experts can write as many essays as they want to try and justify their theory that you have to be tall or express to be successful in Test cricket but the fact is Philander has disproved that theory and is one of the best in the world.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Height has to be the most overrated attribute people look for in a fast bowler. Relatively shorter bowlers who skid off the surface like Marshall and Steyn are just as dangerous if not more.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

High quality test bowler. A real asset for SA.

 

[New Yorker]

Ben Stokes and Moeen Ali get a lot of coverage and press these days, the latter more due to certain reasons .

However I feel Vernon Philander is rather under-appreciated and have been a big fan of his ever since the 2011 tour of Australia to SAF which was his debut series IIRC.

His bowling back then was still good, but think he has come a long way as a batsman. Showed a glimpse of his batting prowess vs us in the 2013 tour where we got smacked 3-0. Think it was the 3rd test (?) where we put up a good total courtesy a Shafiq/Younis masterclass but he ate into a lot of it with a well made 80 odd. (can't recall if that was him or Robin Peterson, also a good bowler who could bat, but that's another story)

Then in this recent tour to Australia he also looked like a formidable bat, playing the short ball with utmost confidence on pitches where it is the most effective.

More than that though he didn't crumble under the pressure of becoming the leader of the pack with Steyn out injured. And I think that was the best I saw of him, especially because a lot of folks here were playing him down saying things like..

"He's too short to be an effective bowler in Australia"

"He's not fast enough to bowl well in Australia"

Both claims were rubbished. And he also put SAF in a good position in the first test vs Eng this season, and is batting really well now.

Where do you rank him in the world today as far as tests go? What will be his legacy? He's a bit old now, but could he still become an ATG?

I'm going to go ahead and say he is number 1 right now with Moeen 2 and Stokes 3.

A bowler who will for ever confound Pakistani fans, for the same reasons that such fans believe that Wasim was a better bowler than McGrath, or Imran.

He may never become an ATG, but he has done alright for himself. Rose meteorically to become No. 1 Test bowler, ahead of an ATG like Steyn. Barring Steyn, no other currently active pace bowler has a lower career average. Better SR than McGrath, Imran, Wasim.

Pace and height are means to an end, not ends in and of themselves. They are relevant in so far as they help a bowler take wickets. See under Wahab.

 

[Leo23]

brilliant test bowler. twice as good as anderson and broad. unfortunately not hyped because he is not english.

 

[idrizzy]

I think OP missed a trick and forgot to mention his batting capabilities too. In my opinion he's an all-rounder and is a vital component of this SA side.

 

[shaz619]

There are good and bad things about Vernon Philander.

First, the good. He has 164 Test wickets at an outstanding average of 22.45. That's a superb record.

Unfortunately, it doesn't withstand closer scrutiny.

He is an accurate medium-fast bowler who bowls in an era in which defensive batting techniques are worse than they have been for 80 years, with even the likes of Kane Williamson notorious for their airy wafts outside off-stump which they attempt because they are so used to limited overs cricket.

For almost his entire career, South Africa has been one of the Top Two Test nations, so of course Philander has not had to bowl to many of the best batsmen. Speaking of which, how exactly does Philander stanck up, six years into his international career?

The answer is surprisingly poorly.

95 wickets at home at an average of 18.95
54 wickets in similar conditions in England, New Zealand and Australia, at an average of 25.37
13 wickets in 7 Tests in 6 years outside of favourable conditions, in Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka and the UAE, at an average of 32.00.

Vernon Philander is a latter day Alec Bedser, as [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] has so helpfully signposted.

He's not tall, he's not quick. But he's very accurate and on helpful wickets is highly skilled at dismissing batsmen with poor defensive techniques.

But the less grass there is on the pitch, the more he struggles.

Consider the tour of Australia in the last southern summer:

First Test at Perth on a grassy, bouncy track against a failing batting line-up:
19.2-2-56-4
22-7-50-1

Second Test at Hobart on a greentop in which the whole match saw fewer than 600 runs scored:
10.1-5-21-5
16-6-31-0

Third Test at Adelaide with less grass on the pitch - even for a pink ball Test:
29-5-100-2
7-2-20-0

It's just astonishing how Philander is transformed into an ineffective bowler when the conditions don't favour him.

That's when you realise how slow and short he is.

POTW

You forgot to the drop bat at the end Junaids

 

[Tusker]

Don't give up your day job in pursuit of a career as a barrister!

Firstly, why is it strange that modern bowlers aren't faster than the very fastest ones from the past? Modern aircraft are slower than older aircraft too: both passenger and military aircraft are slower than was the case 50 years ago.

Secondly, of course you can't find contemporaneous links to events sixty years ago. But the Aeronautical College testing of Tyson and Statham was still widely discussed in cricket broadcasts in New Zealand in the 1990s when I lived there.

So let me see if I understood you correctly .... if I prove that current aircrafts are faster than those built in the 1960s you will accept that Fast bowlers from that ERA were also slower to todays fast bowlers ? This is your reasoning and atleast to you it makes perfect logical sense ... Right ?

Thirdly, the Wellington Aeronautical College is now Massey School of Aviation.

http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/lear...chool-of-aviation/school-of-aviation_home.cfm

Fourthly, answer me this. Do you dispute all measurements of the speed of all objects in the 1950s as recorded by academics and scientists at the time? Because it appears that in this case we have two choices:

Option A: accept the speed measurements made with specialist measuring equipment in the 1950s at a university department which specialised in measuring the speed of projectiles,

or

Option B: accept the estimates of a young man attempting to measure speed on his laptop from low definition 2D film taken at an unknown angle to the delivery which is sixty years old and has been compacted to fit on YouTube, without having access to the height of either the bowler or batsman.

Fifthly, have you asked yourself why speeds were high in the 1950s, then fell in the 1960s and then rose again in the 1970s? You are quick to dismiss anything old as inferior, but that blinds you to an analysis of real trends which occurred.

slight correction needed there ... I dismiss everything inferior as inferior whether it is from year 2017 or anytime before. Just don't expect me to take words and written accounts as evidence to prove speed and quality. I have time and again proved you how far removed they are from the actual fact. The latest one being your theory that more FC Bowling = Better the bowler.

So if you are soooo convinced with the science behind how Tyson was measured (as explained by Tyson himself ) please elaborate in detail in a way that it makes sense. I will be very surprised if you do.


And what has age of the footage , and it being low definition has anything to do with finding out when the ball was released? About compacting .... are you suggesting that the action on that film is not representative of real life Tyson bowling ? Do you realize what it takes to disproportionately distort footage like that ?

I will bump that thread ... where you can explain.

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] ... please clarify if you will accept that bowlers today are faster than from the 50s and 60s if I can prove the same for Aircrafts. Thanks much !

 

[Suleiman]

I think OP missed a trick and forgot to mention his batting capabilities too. In my opinion he's an all-rounder and is a vital component of this SA side.

I did. 3rd and 4th paragraphs.

 

[Saj]

A clever bowler.

Works batsmen out and knows where to put the ball.

Skillfull and patient.

 

[James]

Surprised to see so many detractors here.

Not a big fan of stats myself, but not surprised to see how strong his are.

Philander is a first-rate Test bowler; this should be obvious enough after watching him work through 2-3 spells. He can genuinely move the ball off the seam at a tricky medium pace, which particularly over the wicket to left-handers becomes extremely dangerous.

Tomorrow against England he will take key wickets again I'm sure.

 

[90MPH]

Mediocre bowler in my opinion. No height, no pace, doesn't really swing it and only seams it in helpful conditions. Worst of all, he only performs when it doesn't matter.

You have no idea what you are taking about.

He's a top Test bowler and a class one as well. He bowls tight line and lengths and he gets movement both ways within the new ball - in the air and off the pitch.

There is a reason why he has a top bowling average in Tests and it doesn't happen by fluke in this format.

The only criticism I will have of him is his fitness. Had he been fitter he could have done better, especially in his 2nd and 3rd spells - this has also contributing getting injured in the last few years.

 

[Messiah]

Mediocre bowler in my opinion. No height, no pace, doesn't really swing it and only seams it in helpful conditions. Worst of all, he only performs when it doesn't matter.

completely disagree

 

[Junaids]

He's superb in helpful conditions - better than anyone else.

But his height and lack of pace make him a weak link in unhelpful conditions.

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] ... please clarify if you will accept that bowlers today are faster than from the 50s and 60s if I can prove the same for Aircrafts. Thanks much !

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] - No response to this ?

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]

1. I don't think pace is everything.
2. Philander is an absolutely brilliant bowler in home conditions and in favourable conditions. Sure, he's never going to pass what some people on this forum liken to a "Dennis Lillee Test" - he's always going to struggle in Asia. But does that matter? How often do South Africa need him in Asia? Plus his batting helps out there anyway.

To answer your question:

1. No, I don't think today's bowlers are as fast as the fastest ones in the 1950s, but a lot of those bowlers chucked in a way they couldn't do now.

2. No, I don't think that a B737 is as fast as a Convair 990, or that an A380 is as fast as a Concorde.

 

[Dios]

Big Vern doing it again for South Africa. Owning all these so-called 'experts'.

 

[James]

2 brilliant deliveries to begin the England slide today. Great cricket from him again as I envisaged.

 

[khalil1986]

He's superb in helpful conditions - better than anyone else.

But his height and lack of pace make him a weak link in unhelpful conditions.

Ah you and you're love affair with heights.

Vern is an absolute beast.

 

[New Yorker]

He's superb in helpful conditions - better than anyone else.

But his height and lack of pace make him a weak link in unhelpful conditions.

conditions that are helpful for what? different pace bowlers enjoy different kinds of surfaces. that's hardly unique to philander. and even at his absolute worst, in asia, he still averages better than the career average of eternal pakpassion pace heroes like wahab 'he brings something different' riaz.

 

[Bewal Express]

The guy is consistently good in conditions that have a little something, not everyone can be Marshall, Mcgrath, Donald, IK etc.

 

[Leo23]

for me he is the best test seamer in the world at the moment

 

[thelandofthebravepeople]

The main reason SA did not decline badly when Kallis retired is because of Philander. He is the reverse Kallis.
He averages more with the bat then with the ball which make him a proper allrounder. People should remember that stat when talking about favorable conditions.
Often people forgets, but he is pretty decent with the bat.

 

[Adil_94]

philander has got to be the best new ball bowler in Test cricket atm. even with his trundling pace.

 

[Hasan123]

Brilliant test bowler

 

[MMHS]

Probably, the best bowling all-rounder now, along with Ashwin & Starc - all 3 are better batsman than Amir.